- The three recorded Roman Campaigns in South West Scotland have the character of military occupation and domination. Despite this, no long-term stable control was achieved. The logical conclusion of their activities should have been the assimilation of the indigenous population through a process archaeologists term ‘Romanisation’. This never took place, according to the archaeological evidence currently available. The presence of the Romans must have impacted significantly on the way indigenous communities lived their lives, but the social structure was not transformed in any discernible way.
- The indigenous population continued to dwell in their traditional roundhouse structures. The elites adapted these into a range of monumental forms and seem to have acquired items of Roman material culture, sometimes using them for sacrifice. But they did not adopt the farms with their imposing villas, decorated with decorated plasterwork and mosaics and equipped with underfloor heating that are such a feature of Roman Britain, south of the Tyne-Solway frontier. There are occasional instances which suggest that this process was underway, albeit in a limited way, in particular the cremation burial at High Torrs, Luce Bay, and the counterfeit coin mould from Brighouse Bay, but these appear to be isolated instances, and not part of any wider pattern.
- Rome’s failure to complete the conquest of Scotland does not reflect on the quality of its army. The Roman legions can be viewed as one of the best organised and efficiently managed fighting forces to operate within the ancient world. Following their reorganisation by Emperor Augustus in circa AD 29, the legions became a permanent professional army, whose members signed up for an extended period of 25 years, sometimes more. When at full strength, each legion numbered 5600 men. This large group might then be further subdivided into vexillations, numbering around 1000 men, with further subdivisions into cohorts of 100 men. There was a strict regimental hierarchy of officers, the most numerous of which were the centurions, who each led a cohort.
- At first, the legions were drawn from the existing body of Roman citizens, but as the empire grew, it proved useful to the Romans to recruit young men from conquered lands. Groups of these men were formed into vexillations attached to the legions, but posted at other points along the frontier, well away from their land of origin. Some units were composed entirely of cavalry, while most were infantry, with a small number of mounted troops present who could perform specialist roles like scouting or delivering dispatches. Once a soldier had completed his time of service, he would be given a small pension in the form of a plot of land to farm, and he would become legally recognised as a Roman citizen. Throughout his period of service, he was not allowed to marry, but it is likely that many – particularly those stationed in more settled locations like the forts – would have acquired an unofficial family unit. Once discharged, the marriage would then be legitimised and any children given appropriate legal recognition.
- At Birrens, recovered inscribed stones tell us more about the units and individuals who served there. These indicate that the Antonine fort, the second phase for this site, was built by paired detachments of Legions VIII Augusta and XXII Primigenia. The garrison which subsequently served there in that period was Nerva’s Own First Cohort of Germans (Cohors I Nervana Germanorum), commanded by Faenius Felix. During the third phase of occupation on the site, also in the Antonine period, the fort was occupied by the 2nd Cohort of Tungrians (Cohors II Tungrorum).
- Written accounts left by the Romans tell us much about Roman military life and the various campaigns which brought the legions north. Failure was ascribed to a lack of political will, with the ebb and flow of Rome’s military presence reliant upon the political decisions of emperors. The legions embarked on their military campaigns in response to orders from a political elite which sought to bolster public opinion through military prowess and achievement. When troops were spread too thinly and unrest occurred elsewhere in the Empire, these same troops would be recalled and sent to deal with this new problem.
- The Brigantean revolt of AD 69 created a need to establish the more southerly frontier, linking the Tyne and Solway, strengthened by the famous Hadrian’s Wall. The Flavian campaigns, undertaken in the reign of Vespasian, were an act of aggression which reasserted Roman authority in and around this Tyne-Forth frontier. It is likely that the fort of Birrens was first established as an outpost within ambiguous and unruly frontier territory. We see evidence of this early phase of fortification in a precursor to the later Antonine fort, built of timber and daub, and probably roofed with thatch. The relative lack of material culture recovered there, with no evidence for burning and destruction, might suggest a relatively managed withdrawal.
- In addition to the initial construction of Birrens, there is evidence that the Romans were active over much if not all of South West Scotland. Sites firmly linked with the Flavian campaigns include forts at Loudon and Milton (Tassieholm), a temporary camp at Ayr Academy, and fortlets at Beattock (Barnhill). There are other sites, such as Dalswinton and Ladyward, where a Flavian phase is inferred, if not yet proven,
- The later Antonine campaigns, undertaken around five decades later, left two phases of stone-built construction at Birrens. These can be differentiated through stylistic details in the construction, with the earlier masonry appearing better finished than the later. The soldiers undertook all the construction of their defences and internal buildings themselves. They would have quarried the stone required and manufactured any clay tiles used in the underfloor heating systems (hypocausts) or for roofing. Auxiliary troops were rarely engaged in such specialised work, but it has been suggested that the relatively poor standards of construction in the second Antonine phase might indicate that this was the work of auxiliaries, rather than legionaries.
- Aerial photography has added a large number of Roman military sites to those first identified and examined by the likes of Roy and Gordon. Some of these sites appear to be more permanent in character, like Birrens, or Carzield, but there are a number of others which represent temporary camps. Soldiers moving from one fort to another, or engaged upon manoeuvres or training, or carrying out specific objectives in an area, would have set up a camp at the end of each day, with its own perimeter defenses and characteristic dumbbell-shaped pits for cooking. Examples of these have been found at Ayr Academy and Beattock, Bankend. Ten men would have shared a leather tent, with the grinding of their daily corn ration and the baking and cooking also a shared task. When it was time to move on, the tent would have been packed and they would have moved on, with heavier items, like the tent and the handmill for grinding the corn, carried on pack animals. Each camp may have housed them for days or weeks; sometimes, perhaps they may even have moved on to their next destination after one night.
- These sites are very ephemeral in archaeological terms, and it is sometimes difficult to disentangle the complex palimpsests that result from repeated episodes of Roman occupation. Often, the sites of both forts and camps are located favourably in terms of physical and strategic advantage, and as a result, the same sites are reused, time and time again. The situation at Birrens, which has revealed at least three (and some suggest as many as five) discreet occupation phases, is a case in point.
- Roman fortified sites and camps vary in size according to the number of soldiers billeted there. The earlier Flavian sites tend to be smaller on plan, with the later Antonine forts overlapping and occasionally re-using the earlier fortifications. Such a situation was encountered at Birrens. On a number of occasions, an annexe is built onto an existing fort or even a camp – the reasons given for this additional space are varied and complex. Some researchers suggest that camp followers may have had their accommodation here, others that it may represent another group of soldiers who arrived at a different time or who served a different function.
- Whether stone- or timber-built, the forts are laid out on the same basic ground plan, one which is replicated across the empire. The number of enclosing ramparts and ditches may vary, but the plan is invariably a rectangle with rounded corners. There tend to be four entrances, one on each side, and located almost centrally in the line of the perimeter defence, with the two opposing lateral entrances offset slightly to create space for the headquarters building, the principia, which sits at the heart of the site.
- The principia would have housed the commander’s office, as well as the strongroom and the shrine. Much of the time, the commander was an official in his own right, distinct from the legion or auxiliary unit and attached to his garrison. His close proximity to the strongroom was understandable as it was where monies (for wages, for example) were stored. The shrine was equally important as it was where the regimental standards and a statue of the emperor were housed.
- Arranged around the principia were barrack blocks, stables and granaries. The latter were where food stores were housed, and they are distinguishable archaeologically by their raised floors and dwarf walls. Another vital part of the site was a fabrica or workshop where repairs could be carried out on armour and weapons and other equipment. Communal latrines were another vital part of the fort’s facilities, with a bathhouse commonly located outside the perimeter defences. This allowed for civilian use by camp followers, and excess water was often used to flush away waste from the latrines. The cooking ovens tended to be placed around the perimeter, where the fire hazard might not be so extreme or the smoke so intrusive. This layout may have been replicated in the temporary camps, although it has been suggested, following the excavations at Raeburnfoot that perhaps the placing was not always adhered to so rigidly in these sites, as the cooking ovens tend to be distributed more randomly across the camp’s interior.
- This kind of loose organisation appears to be associated with the Stracathro-type camps, which are large camps associated with a particularly complex defensive arrangement around the entrances associated with the Agricolan/Flavian campaigns. These feature a distinctive external ditch which breaks up the approach to the entrance (the titulus), and the entrance ditches are slightly inturned to allow crossfire upon intruders (clavicular entrances). This distinctive style could be linked with a particular legion or tribune. Different styles of ditches could also potentially allow the identification of different phases of the camp. An early form of ditch, the ‘Punic’ ditch, features a vertical scarp and a sloping counterscarp, while later forms have the scarp and the counterscarp running at the same angle, often with a rectilinear slot running the length of the ditch at the point where the two cuts meet. This trench or slot would have provided a further hindrance to anyone attempting to storm the ditch and attack the camp’s occupants.
- Another crucial element in the Roman occupation of Scotland was the creation of a road network, which allowed the rapid movement of troops across the region. An integral part of this was the smaller fortlets and watchtowers, which were placed at regular intervals. The forts sat at important nodal points, with the intervening routes overlooked by the fortlets and watchtowers which together formed an important surveillance system. An incident or threat at one end of a route could soon be reported through a system of beacon fires, resulting in the almost-instantaneous passage of intelligence.
- There is copious evidence for this system of surveillance and control throughout much of the region, although the known evidence to date appears to focus along the southern edge of the region, on the north bank of the Solway and Galloway, and around the coast of Ayrshire. Inland, there is a marked concentration on the Nith Valley, which formed an important north-south access route on the western side of the country, vital to resupplying the forts and garrisons along the Antonine Wall during the mid-2nd century AD. Inland, within much of North and East Ayrshire, there is a surprising dearth of evidence for Roman activity. Whether this is real or illusory cannot be determined as yet; as recently as 2015, excavations at Ayr Academy revealed a previously unknown temporary camp through the discovery of its characteristic dumbbell shaped ovens. Prior to its discovery, Roman penetration of the Ayrshire coast had only been identified as far north as Girvan Mains.
- Roman culture was steeped in performative violence. Even smaller towns had their own amphitheatre, which put on a variety of bloody spectacles involving staged fights between a variety of wild animals and people, often enslaved persons, sometimes captured in war. We cannot tell if individuals who originally lived in South West Scotland ended up as captives – either captured by the Roman war machine itself, or victims of inter-tribal warfare – who found their way into the Roman supply chain and lived and died in distant parts of the empire. It is possible, too, that young men born and raised in the region were conscripted into the Roman army, where they would have served their long years in the military on another frontier in a distant part of the empire, although the relatively short time spans the Roman spent in South West Scotland might not have enabled even that level of interaction between Roman forces and the indigenous communities.
- Performative violence aside, day-to-day life for Roman military personnel was dangerous and violent. Their weapons drill was frequent and was undertaken with utmost seriousness. It was reported that as many soldiers died through wounds and injuries received during drills and training as in the actual battles in which they took part. This might explain why around 20,000 to 30,000 new recruits were needed to maintain the Roman war machine every year.
- The Roman military fought as a well-drilled unit, working together in a tight rank, fighting from behind a wall of large shields for protection. The infantry was armed with a long spear with a thin, flexible shank, the pilum, and a short stabbing sword, the gladius, for fighting at close quarters. They also wore armour, which varied over time, and according to the status of the soldier, with the legionaries who made up the infantry more heavily armoured than the auxiliaries, or the cavalry. Cavalry might also use throwing spears or javelins. Last of all, they were equipped with a large shield, which provided additional protection.
- Actual examples of weapons and armour are rare, presumably because military personnel carried them with them at all times and would never have willingly abandoned them. One unusual example is, however, the find of a Roman javelin from the fort site at Carzield. A possible fragment of a legionary’s plate armour, known as lorica, has been recovered from Drumlanrig.
- The Roman army also used specialist units of archers or artillerymen, trained to use a variety of simple weapons like the slingshot to much larger mechanised field pieces like the onager, which could fire stone balls. Their fighting style was at odds with the indigenous Iron Age fighting techniques, which involved single combat between champions and the use of chariots to move fighters back and forth quickly from the field. When facing the Romans, however, it is likely that this ritualised form of combat was not strictly adhered to, with the indigenous population instead fielding disorganised groups that fought in a more chaotic way. It is hard to find direct evidence for Roman combat archaeologically. Instead, much reliance is put on the literary legacy of the Romans themselves.
- One site in South West Scotland does, however, appear to provide us with some rare and very important evidence for Roman fighting techniques and military action in the field. This is the hillfort site of Burnswark, an Iron Age defensive settlement which has Roman fortifications constructed at the base of the hill on its north and south sides. One of these fortifications features three robust platforms, known as ‘The Three Brethren’, which have been interpreted as probably artillery platforms, upon which sat artillery pieces like ballistas or onagers.
- Excavations at Burnswark, from the early work carried out by James Barbour onwards (Christison 1899), revealed quantities of lead glandes, or sling shots, which indicated that the hillfort had been attacked by Roman artillery. This led to a long-running debate about the nature of the Roman fortifications and material culture at the site. Was it the site of a Roman training camp, where soldiers were given hands-on experience of attacking a defensive hilltop settlement? Or was it the site of an actual siege, undertaken as an act of war? The debate has moved between one explanation and the other for over a century.
- Work at the site is ongoing. Stone ballista balls have now been found in addition to the lead glandes, with a variety of previously unrecognised types of the latter now being identified. These include a small form which has a hole drilled in the side. This creates a whistling sound when it is fired, making it an early form of psychological warfare (Reid and Nicholson 2019). It is a form referred to by Julius Caesar in his writings, who commented that its sound could stampede elephants. Although no elephants were employed by either side at Burnswark, it is now becoming increasingly apparent that Burnswark was in fact the site of a major offensive carried out by the Romans upon a stronghold of the indigenous population, who may have retreated there in the hope it would offer them a place of safety. The date of such an offensive has also been open to date. Early accounts place it amongst the Flavian campaigns, with the attack carried out under the command of Agricola. Recent work argues instead that it formed part of the Antonine Reconquest of Scotland, undertaken in the mid-2nd century AD (Reid and Nicholson 2019, 476). This date is consistent with the date of abandonment proposed for the Iron Age roundhouses excavated within the interior of the hillfort by George Jobey.